On 06/29/2009 02:41 PM, Jens Axboe wrote: > On Mon, Jun 29 2009, NeilBrown wrote: >> On Mon, June 29, 2009 8:18 pm, Jens Axboe wrote: >>> On Sat, Jun 27 2009, Neil Brown wrote: >>>>> There's no such thing as first or second class block devices. The fact >>>>> that drivers using ->make_request_fn directly do not utilize the full >>>>> scope of the queue isn't a very interesting fact, imho. >>>> Your phrase "drivers using ->make_request_fn directly" seems to >>>> suggest you are looking at things very differently to me. >>>> >>>> From my perspective, all drivers use ->make_request_fn equally. >>>> Some set it to "__make_request", some to "md_make_request", others to >>>> "dm_request" or "loop_make_request" etc. >>> Neil, will you please stop these silly games. Stop trying to invent >>> differences based on interpretations of what you read into my replies. >> >> We do seem to be having trouble communicating don't we :-( >> Be assured that it is not my intention to play games, silly or otherwise. >> >> Maybe I should just try sending you patches. Maybe that will >> make my meaning clearer. >> >> For the moment, I'm much more interested in the other question, >> that of whether I can avoid having a 'queue' directory introduced into >> md/dm/etc device directories in sysfs. > > We already talked about this, several times. My answer is that it seems > pointless to begin with internally, and externally it just makes the API > worse since tools then have to know which device type they are talking > to. > I do however see a problem with sysfs-files that mostly work for most devices but for some "device type" they do nothing silently. At least make these directory/files read-only for the un-used cases (eg. dm/md). And return proper values to indicate their un-usefulness like "-1" or "NA" > So I still see absolutely zero point in making such a change, quite the > opposite. > Just my $0.017 Boaz -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
